1. The word "education" is an abstraction. When not accompanied by significant specifics, it is not useful in any policy discussion, too vague and nebulous. Any narrative that appeals broadly to "education," "more educated," "less educated," etc. alone without significant specifics is a lie narrative intended to deceive. There is no valid presumption whatsoever that obtaining an undifferentiated degree or diploma makes one more "educated" by default. This also applies to qualified abstractions such as "college education," "trade education" or "high school education," but admittedly less so. We have plenty of less abstract terms that are more generally useful such as "literacy," "X skills," "Y bodies of knowledge" that are less subject to manipulation than "education" yet a puzzling amount of policy appeals stop at the nebulous "education." Ask yourself why that is and who benefits from the error? 2. Degrees or diplomas from specific places in specific fields of study possess some abstract characteristics, but are far less abstract than the nebulous "education." It goes without saying that an MIT degree in computer engineering is very different from a diploma from Sal's Bartending School. Therefore, ALL meaningful policy discussions of the merits, costs, attributes of various forms of education product -must- specify -which- specific education products from -where- are being discussed and compared. Specific diplomas in specific fields of study from specific places can easily be tracked and measured quantitatively as to their general $$ value. Yet almost NO MSM and other discussion of "education" in the U.S. does so. Ask yourself why this is and who benefits? 3. Government and related workers, especially teachers, receive more compensation in lockstep based on undifferentiated degrees possessed. Some private sector companies compensate similarly, a vast majority do not. This is because the private sector values experience related to actual performance of work, and especially measurable, quantified results, far more than obtaining education product. Any narrative on "education" that does not at least acknowledge this very significant difference in compensation is a lie narrative intended to deceive. For example, claiming that the residents of whole states possess more undifferentiated degrees than the residents of other states, so are more "educated" is an obvious compound fallacy that informs no rational policy discussion without FAR more detail. 4. In light of stark differences in how government and related workers are compensated versus the private sector, and the noncontroversial fact that people's opinions and voting behavior are shaped by many factors, any narrative that attempts a presumption that possession of more education product in this or that voting demographic means they are voting a certain way due to more "education" alone, that discounts other factors such as financial self-benefit, is a lie narrative intended to deceive. Does it annoy you as it does me that discussions of educational factors in the U.S. are generally couched in the most nebulous abstract ways instead of specifically? Why is that? Who benefits?
